Talk:Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war

A second article is not needed
This article lends undue weight to the issue of chemical weapons use, especially when so much remains "unproven". There is a substantive section on chemical weapons at Syrian civil war which sufficiently covers the topic. Many of the references listed amount to nothing more than reporting on opinion or speculation; there is very little conclusive information. Taroaldo   ✉   22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The main Syrian civil war article was getting too long, which is why I decided to split the part about chemical weapons. The use of chemical weapons, however, is not speculative. Today, Obama has confirmed its use. But I do agree that the article needs a lot of improvement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on. Is Obama some kind of independent CW expert? After Iraq the US government is the last source to trust in that matter. --Emesik (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a new article is necessary if there is enough information, so a compromise can be made. Either the page must be improved and more information added, or it is removed. Sovetus (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As often happens with evolving current events, significant amounts of information are added rapidly. Often most of this information is unnecessary and, when the events have settled down, the article is scaled back dramatically. At this point, with so much speculation, chemical weapons usage does not require its own page. Three or four paragraphs in the Syrian civil war page will be sufficient. Taroaldo   ✉   06:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the content needs to be split from Syrian civil war, it fits nicely into Syria and weapons of mass destruction. This article already contains much of the content here, so we should merge the rest that is notable and redirect.  TDL (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. We can do that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A merge should usually have a bit of discussion on the destination's talk page. I do think it was a good idea, though. The material seems like good fit over there. Regards --
 * Taroaldo   ✉   20:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing redirection
I believe there now is enough reliable information to justify a separate article on this topic. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlbaeko (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidents, 22 April 2014
( Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Can you check the location and split the incidents if they are not clearly connected? I believe the correct location is Darayya and Talmenes. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ( Hello. Looks like it has already been done.Fotoriety (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I ment splitting up the incidents like this. This way someone can fill in information about injuries and hopefully the result of an investigation later. Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Khan al-Asal investigation
Please, do not remove this well sourced information:

"A Russian team investigated the Khan al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013. The Russian UN ambassador delivered a report with analysis of the samples taken at the site to the UN Secretary General on 9 July 2013. They declared that the sarin had been produced in "cottage industry" conditions without the use of chemical stabilisers and that the Sarin contained diisopropyl fluorophosphate." The information is covered in the final UN report and this RT article provides more details. RT is not banned on WP and for this information it is a WP:RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RT should not be RS for Syrian civil war because it is arm of Russian regime which sides with Assad regime - the noticeboard made it clear consensus was that it is not reliable because it has no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. but anyway you go ahead and put RT all over the place, what is sodding consensus compared to your desire to push RT fairy talesSayerslle (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to read the discussions on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, you would have noticed that there is no clear consensus regarding RT. Some say it is as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, other say it is reliable for non-controversial facts. In general it depend on the claim. There was no single answer. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * well if its used to say simply that the Russians handed their made up report to the UN, then I suppose it is o.k., but I think RS even for that are preferable because along with a few straightforward 'facts' there is a whole load of absurd propaganda at RTSayerslle (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't like the article, but it is not up to you to decide which source I shall use (as long as it is a reliable source for the claim I include). Erlbaeko (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * but RT is not a reliable source for this controversial subject - not at all - do you think it is reliable with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? here is an interesting piece from the guardian - 'In recent interviews in Moscow with me and at RT's new studios in London, 'its reporters and producers revealed a view of the world, from conspiracy theories to other, more worrying beliefs, that should give cause for concern.

According, for example, to Rory Suchet, RT's main news anchor, other news channels are controlled by "financiers" and "corporations". It is all, he told me, part of the "military-industrial complex" and he mused how some people believe "there is too much Jewish money in America". There is an argument, he suggested, that "Jewish money controls a huge amount of foreign policy in Washington".' - its a fascist, totalitarian-minded, propaganda outfit for the credulous/stupid - cynical/fascist only. oh gawd, its the 1930s all over again, -wp doesn't need it erlbaeko - Sayerslle (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not banned, not in general neither for this subjects, and I use them whenever I like. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * but did you not gather there was opinion told you at the noticeboard that it is not considered reliable as it doesn't have a good reputation for accuracy and fact checking. 'and I use them whenever I like' - yeah,  do what you like, use it where you like,- Sayerslle (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will. :) Erlbaeko (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the blog you use as a reference reliable? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the brown moses blog is well respected by RS, quoted by RS, and regarded as a RS. but if you have doubts why not ask at the noticeboard? Sayerslle (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to hear your opinion. I look into it later. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Undeclared "traces of sarin"
User:VQuakr and User:Kravietz. I will remove the statement: In 2015 the UN mission disclosed previously undeclared traces of sarin compounds in a "military research site", from the UN mission to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons section.
 * Firstly, this has nothing to do with the UN mission to investigate alleged use of chemical weapons. That mission ended in late 2013/early 2014. The OPCW fact-finding mission has its own section under Investigation. If it must be included, include it in that section.
 * Secondly, even if the "UN mission" is corrected to the "OPCW mission", the claim about undeclared traces of sarin is itself dubious. Who do you declare traces of sarin? Is it in liters of traces? Or can you declare wipe samples? It may be something in the story, but to write "undeclared traces of sarin" is just not correct. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you just go and reword it to be correct instead of removing? Neither English is my native language nor I'm expert on chemical weapons so my wording may be not entirely right, but I just summarized what I've read in the article. And it would perhaps help if you just read it instead of asking what "undeclared" means here. Kravietz (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not your interpretation that was wrong. It is the claim in the referenced article. If I believed the statement had improved the article, I would have corrected it instead of deleted it. Sorry if I was unclear, but I tried to explain the problem in the edit summary. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * your original synthesis is not needed or welcome. Please stop removing cited content just because you do not personally believe it. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding disputed information until you have consensus to include it, and please remember the General sanctions, including the 1RR-rule, that applays to all pages related to the Syrian Civil War. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the only editor that has repeatedly reverted on this article, gaming the 1RR by eight minutes. The only reason you have given for the removal is that you disagree with the source, which is not a line of reasoning that we use on WP. Consensus is not the same as unanimity, so if you have nothing else to add then it appears the consensus is against you in this case. VQuakr (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted a bold edit to previous consensus, and explained why in the edit summary. Why don't you participate in the discussion to reach a consensus instead of just re-reverting? Erlbaeko (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right here. VQuakr (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement seems to originate from this Reuters article. In the Reuters article, it is attributed to a diplomatic source that spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information is confidential. According to this Deutsche Welle article, Latvia's permanent representative at OPCW, Maris Klisans, stated to fellow delegates at a closed-door meeting that the European Union had a number of "concerns" over the issue, adding that "the recent finding … showing traces of precursors of VX and sarin were found on a site where they were not supposed to be". That is not the same as "undeclared traces of sarin". I don't see how the EU statement referenced in the Telegraph article back up the claim either. It says "The EU is in particular concerned about the possibility that Syria may still hold chemical weapons materials and alarmed by scientific findings that raise the question of the existence of a hitherto undeclared chemical weapons agent by Syria." Erlbaeko (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The story has obviously been widely covered. I echo User:Kravietz's request for a proposed rephrasing from you instead of outright removal. VQuakr (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like:
 * But Imo the hole story is a little to vague to be included at all. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction. This is most likely the OPCW-UN Joint Mission in Syrias findings and not The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syrias findings. The referred articles only say "samples taken by experts from the OPCW". Erlbaeko (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction 2. According to this Todays Zaman article, a UN diplomat said the Syrians had declared the site, but that they hadn't declared that sarin and VX were produced there. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Incident on 29 October 2013
Volunteer Marek: please, do not remove the incident on 29 October 2013 in Ras al-Ayn, Al-Hasakah Governorate on Kurdish forces.

The attack was reported by Al-Mayadeen, and have been covered in several WP:RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rebels conduct new chemical weapons attack in Syria near Turkish border - report
 * Russia alarmed by fresh reports Syrian militants using chemical weapons – FM
 * Sender: Islamisten in Syrien setzen Giftgas gegen Kurden ein
 * Tấn công bằng vũ khí hóa học tái diễn tại Syria


 * At least two three of these are not WP:RS. If it was covered in RS then use RS. Simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Re:

Please find reliable sources for this info. RT news, or Voice of Russia, or blogs of far right neo-Nazi wackos are not reliable sources. If the info is legit there should be no problem with finding actual reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for self reverting. I believe the RT and Voice of Russia article are sufficient. If we keep them, we may remove the Berliner Umschau-article. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not sufficient, as they are not reliable, which you know very well since you were involved in some of the related discussions. Look, the fact that you have RT, Voice of Russia and a neo-nazi mag as sources raises red flags. If this info is indeed true then it shouldn't be that hard to find an actual reliable source.
 * Can you please show some good faith and remove this text and these junk sources until such time as you find actual reliable sources to back it up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can remove the Berliner Umschau-article. That was just an article I found when searching for another RS. I don't know if it is a neo-nazi magacine as you claim or not, but you seems to be familiar with that area, so I take your word for that. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remove the text as well as the other non-reliable sources (RT and VoR) until you find actual reliable sources. Again, if the info is legit, this shouldn't be hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked around to see if there are actual reliable sources to support this claim. There's a lot of sources for the ISIS attacks against Kurds in July 2015 but almost nothing for an October 2013 attack by "rebels" against Kurds. The "sources" that are there for an October 2013 attack raise tons of red flags.

Basically, there's a few reports from Russian state misinformation outlets, like RT and VoR, and then.... oodles of conspiracy websites, crazy-far right websites, wacko websites and other internet trash. I was unable to find a single reliable sources which supports the October 2013 attack text. I found a ton of sources similar to the neo-Nazi Berliner-Umschau.

Something sketchy's going on and until an actual reliable source is found, this needs to be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The VoR-article says "Russia has expressed its indignation over the lack of coverage that western media has given to the report on Syrian rebels using chemical weapons against the local Kurdish community.", so don't be surprised if you can't find any. My guess is that this was not politicaly correct to report on in late 2013. Do you have a problem with Al Mayadeen too, or just Russian media? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your "guesses". If you "can't find any (sources)" then remove it. Wikipedia, not "me", has a problem with RT and VoR in the sense that they're not reliable sources. They're especially not reliable if the only other sources which support their line are fringe neo nazi conspiracy websites.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know if "Wikipedia" has a problem with Al Mayadeen? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't. At first glance it looks unreliable but I've never seen it discussed in detail. However, the three sources which you currently have are RT, Voice of Russia, and Berliner-Umschau, not Al Mayadeen so I don't see the point of your question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the RT-article and the VoR-article attributes the claim to Al-Mayadeen, which are responsible for accuracy. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should use Al-Mayadeen, not RT and VoR. But like I said, they don't look reliable either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Al-Mayadeen looks reliable to me. According to WP:NEWSORG they should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. I did, but I can update the refs too. Btw, BBC also attribute claims to Al-Mayadeen. Ref. BBC Erlbaeko (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The description of Al-Mayadeen suggests otherwise. I see nothing in the BBC source about Al-Hasakah.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the WP article suggests otherwise, but that is not a good argument to exclude a news organisation. Regarding the BBC source; that is not about Al-Hasakah or this incident. I said that BBC also attribute claims to Al-Mayadeen, and so does The New York Times (ref), meaning that Al-Mayadeen are quoted by RS, respected by RS, and I believe they are regarded as a RS according to our policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Being quoted by an RS is not the same as being respected by an RS nor is it sufficient to make it an RS. I still see no indication that Al-Mayadeen is RS except for your wishful thinking. And in this case they are likely to have significant bias and on top of that would be considered a tertiary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It may not be sufficient to make it an RS, but it's an indication. More important then; Al-Mayadeen is a well-established news organization with a 500 strong staff and reporters in Arab and Western capitals. Ref. al-akhbar. That means they are generally considered to be a RS by our guideline. Nor is it a tertiary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Al-Mayadeen, RT and VoR are secondary sources. Please also note that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Erlbaeko (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can ask about the reliability of Al-Mayadeen over at WP:RSN. If the discussion there says it's reliable then... well, then you're still left with the problem that in this context you're trying to use tertiary, and non-reliable sources like RT and VoR. If you could provide the Al-Mayadeen source directly then... well, then you'd still be left with the problem that it's not reliable. So you need to do two things:
 * Get the direct Al-Mayadeen source rather than RT, VoR or some far-right conspiracy website.
 * Establish that Al-Mayadeen is reliable, which like I said, it does not appear to be. The "Korean Central News Agency" is a "well-established organization" and I suspect their staff is even larger than that of Al-Mayadeen. But that doesn't make them reliable. The size of staff or how long an organization has been around is not mentioned anywhere in WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Burden
Re: Yes, I know the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, but that burden "is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", and as note 2 says "once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia". As I said above, I believe both the RT article and the VoR article are sufficient, so what specific problem do you have with the sourcing? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But you have NOT "provided a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Specific problems have been articulated. Please don't try to WP:GAME policy. You know very well that neo-nazi blogs, or RT, or VoR are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. So why are you trying to use these? It's hard to assume in good faith, that you actually believe in good faith for these sources to be considered RS by Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But?!
 * I have provided TWO citations to reliable sources that directly support the contribution. Even if you don't like it, both RT and VoR are generally considered to be reliable sources by our guideline. It is you how is trying to game the system by trying to exclude sources that disputes your POV. You know very well that RT and VoR are generally considered to be reliable by Wikipedia’s guideline.
 * Why these? Because they are the best sources that I could find, for the info I want to include. And why not? Because they are Russian sources?
 * And please self-revert. Your latest revert may be seen as disruptive edit warring. And also; please stop using that "neo-nazi blogs"-argument. I have removed that Berliner Umschau-article and I said that was just an article I found when I was searching for another RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. Neither RT nor VoR are considered to be reliable sources. I'm pretty sure you know this since, IIRC, you were involved in those discussion where that consensus was reached. Hence, I would appreciate it if you stopped playing games since that kind of behavior is dishonest (knowing something to be true but pretending otherwise to try to "win" an argument).
 * If these are the best sources you can find then they're not good enough and the text shouldn't be added. As already stated above, if the only sources for some information are RT, Voice of Russia, and Neo-Nazi blogs, that, um.... raises a lot of red flags. If this info was legit, it'd be easy to find other, actually reliable sources. The fact that you dismiss such request above by referencing some "Western media conspiracy" doesn't exactly help your argument.
 * The Berliner-Umschau article is relevant because it illustrates the crappy quality of sources you're bringing to the table.
 * And I'm sorry, but you've been reverted by several users, you are using clearly non-reliable sources, and as you yourself acknowledge, you have failed to meet WP:BURDEN in this instance, so if anyone's reverts can be seen as disruptive, it's yours.
 * Please don't restore this material until you've got actual reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You must have a very selective memory.... Yes, I have been involved in some of those discussions, but I haven’t seen any consensus that says that RT or VoR are generally not reliable. Where is the consensus that says that? I do, however, remember that your position have been that. The only formally closed discussion I have seen regarding RT is three years old, and concludes with "The consensus appears to be that most of the time RT can be treated as a reliable source." Ref. RFC: Is RT a reliable source as per WP:RS? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, if you want to have another round of "is RT reliable" be my guest. WP:RSN is over that way. You know damn well that the general consensus in those discussion was that it was generally not reliable except for simple facts and/or positions of Russian government. Your link to a discussion from three years ago is obviously made in extreme bad faith since you are participated in SEVERAL later discussion where that local result (which wasn't even at RSN) was contradicted. Earlier you were even pretending that you were unaware of these discussions. Apparently you are still pretending. You know, your monthly allotment of AGF has been used up. I don't feel like wasting my time with someone who's playing games.
 * One more time: if the only sources which report on this are RT, Voice of Russia and neo-Nazi mags, that raises red flags. Find reliable sources or quit wasting other editors' time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And for freak's sake, I just looked at that discussion you linked more carefully. All that consensus means is that RT is a reliable source for statements about itself in the RT article. That's all. So you're misrepresentin' that too. By all means, please continue with this kind of approach to editing controversial, discretionarily sanctioned, articles on Wikipedia... Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Erlbaeko (re: to comment on my talk page). I would rather not repeat arguments about RT and other Russian TV sources that were said by me and others during previous discussions. All important "journalists", including even Alexei Venediktov come to the Kremlin on a regular basis to receive instructions about covering the events. Therefore, nothing on political subjects (such as that one) is reliable on Russian TV, excluding only one independent channel. All important claims should be sourced using something more reliable. If they can not, such claims do not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, rather than repeating invalid policy arguments against RT, you should read the articles and argue against its inclusion based on the context. If you are able to find fact errors or if you can point out specific problems with the article, I might even agree with you. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, is it "extreme bad faith" to link to the only RFC that discuss the topic? Wow. And then you claim that "all that consensus means is that RT is a reliable source for statements about itself in the RT article." Wow 2. Are you sure you read it?
 * The question asked in the top of that RFC is:


 * Erlbaeko (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Already addressed (and btw that's one helluva misfiled RfC). You can either try to engage in this bad faith discussion or you can go out there, find an actual reliable source and come back with that. If you can't, then it stays out. Not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't actually see that you have provided a single argument for excluding RT and VoR that are founded in the relevant guideline or in the most relevant policy. Could it be that you simply don't have one? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because these arguments have been stated over and over and over again. Simple: RT and VoR do NOT have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" as WP:RS requires. Quite the opposite in fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you and some others have stated that over and over and over again. However, that argument has also been rejected over and over again. Ref. RSN - Archive 173 RT Erlbaeko (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Erlbaeko. Your statement in quotation box above is highly questionable. There are currently more than 2000 (!) links from various WP pages to RT TV, and no one removes them without actually looking at a particular claim. I am only telling it should generally be avoided on controversial political subjects. In addition, your are asking a loaded question by combining together sources of very different quality. Here is the difference. Current news on Russian TV in general are simply not journalism; they are staged, just like serial films. Actually, making fiction costs more money. That's why costs of producing news on Russian TV skyrocketed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's simple
Erlbaeko, this is going nowhere. But it's actually pretty simple. All you need is one.. uno, eins, واحد, אחת, один, tahi, 一, cē, 하나, ᏌᏊᎢ, jeden, egy, ひと, এক, մեկ, un... ONE SINGLE SOLITARY reliable source to back up the info from the unreliable sources you've got and you're good to go.

Either you can't find such a source in which case this is a pretty clear indication that the sources you've got are full of it and the info is bunk. Making excuses about "western media conspiracy" is just another way of admitting "I can't find such a reliable source" and it doesn't exactly help your case.

Or you find it and the dispute is over.

It's simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can add the one from Vietam. It does support the claim. Ref. Google translate It's used as an RS on Wikipedia many times before. Ref. search However, I will keep the sources that is in English. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the nature of that source? A quick perusal does not inspire confidence.
 * It's simple. Find. A. Single. Reliable. Source. Otherwise this goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one of Vietams biggest newspapers. I don't know their "reputation for fact checking". Do you got a problem with that?
 * I have provided. At. Least. Two. I believe that is sufficient. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. Not one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Find. A. Single. Reliable. Source. Otherwise this goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added two. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material
Re:. I did add two extra reliable sources. What is your rasonale for reverting this time? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with VM's removal. The sources you added still only refer back to the single Al-M report which, as far as can be determined, do not report the incident as a 'chemical attack'. They seem to simply be repeating, almost verbatim, the RT and VoR material. As I said repeatedly at RSN you should have, at least, something that says the original broadcast actually reported it as a chemical attack. The contemporaneous social media reports from Al-M simply reported 'yellow smoke' and 'vomiting' that is not the same as a 'chemical attack'. Repeating bad information does not make it reliable. J bh  Talk  19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TRUTH Erlbaeko (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing for the old "Verifiability not truth" that old saw is long depricated and we use editorial judgement when examining sources. A claim is no better than the source it is attributed to. J bh  Talk  19:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing for using a Tweet translated by Google to examine if a source is reliable? Do you even know if Google translated that Tweet correctly? Erlbaeko (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No what I am saying is that in the process of tracking down what the original source used by the press reports actually said I have found nothing but some social media blurbs and nothing, in text on the page that supposedly summarizes the cited broadcast . By knowing what the social media from Al-M say and by knowing that the Russian sources have no more details than the Al-M social media releases and by knowing that social media reports are seldom less sensationalistic than the more in-depth report. I can apply my knowledge of source analysis and editorial judgement to conclude that RT and VoR, known UN-reliable sources, likely embellished the reports and 'editorialized' the term "chemical attack". I see no indication that any of the other news reports had better information and it is likely that they got their information from RT rather than going back to Al-M just like many Western papers pull material from AP/UPI without checking the original source. When you have an un-reliable source reporting what another source said you should go back to the original source to verify what it reported . We did that and it faild verification . I acknowledge that it is still possible that the telivised broadcast may still verify the claim of a "chemical attack" but the other statements we have from the original source, even if social media, do not support the claim. You have had several editors, here and at RSN say you do not have adequate sourcing for the claim you wish to insert. I have said I think we need something from Al-M that says it was a "chemical attack" because it is the original source and none of the news reports are quoting them as saying it was a "chemical attack". They only quote the "yellow smoke" and "vomiting" (Which is exactly what the social media from Al-M say) . Everything else, the claim it was a "chemical attack" and the claim that the vomiting was a "symptom of chemical attack" was added by the UN-reliable sources. I do not think it likely you will find consensus for your addition until you get some better reporting on the incident. Either the original Al-M report or some indepednent reporting not based on Al-M that says a chemical attack occured. J bh  Talk  20:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, in your edit summary and above you claim that WP:RSN supports the restoration of this material. Bunkum. Total bunkum. I cannot find one single commentator in that discussion which agrees with you that the text should be included or that the sourcing is sufficient. I can see however multiple outside editors telling you the same thing I've tried to tell you repeatedly: these are not reliable sources.

And the interfax source - which just reprints the same thing - doesn't exactly help here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't "claim that WP:RSN supports the restoration of this material". There is not much consensus in that thread at all. If there is one, it must be that further references are needed, but if you remove invalid policy based arguments, it is not much left (actually nothing left, I believe). Most answers seem to be based on a misunderstanding that the table documents confirmed attacks (and if that was the case, I would agree that further references were needed too). Anyway, answers at WP:RSN are not official policy.
 * Btw, you said above that all I needed is one reliable source to back up the info, so I was actually surprised (well, not really) that you still argue for removal. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sortable table vs list format

 * Unfortunately, there is a bigger problem. The Table on this page is not at all readable. One should return back to this format if anyone cares about readers. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do. Fyi, that table format was suggested by a year ago. Ref. diff. I converted it to a sortable table format a month later. Ref. diff I see advantages and disadvantages with both the list format and the table format. I like the sorting functionality in the table, but the list format may be more readable as you say. A combination may work? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130607172628/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/news-316966-report-police-foil-al-nusra-bomb-attack-planned-for-adana.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-316966-report-police-foil-al-nusra-bomb-attack-planned-for-adana.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920171737/http://www.aydinlikdaily.com/Al-Nusra-Linked-to-Chemical-Production-in-Turkey-591 to http://www.aydinlikdaily.com/Al-Nusra-Linked-to-Chemical-Production-in-Turkey-591
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140912051715/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/syrian-villagers-recount/1357522.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/syrian-villagers-recount/1357522.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403090606/http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/world/article/Syrian-rebels-open-offensive-for-major-6155068.php to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/world/article/Syrian-rebels-open-offensive-for-major-6155068.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Attack of 11 Dec. 2016
No mention of the suspected Sarin attack in Hama from December. This took place in vicinity of town of Uqayribat in Eastern Hama Governorate.

Guardian reports 93 dead.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/international-concern-over-claims-of-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible Opposition Propaganda
This video has been floating around for a number of years now. To my knowledge, I have found no explanation for the purpose of the exercise demonstrated in this video. It does appear to show children acting out a chemical attack and being judged on their performances. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors, especially anyone who can speak arabic.

Note: I am not suggesting that any particular attacks have been faked. However, if this video is legitimate it is certainly worth a mention in the article.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=rSYR6NoGkD0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a WP:RS, so it wouldn't go in the article. Try submitting it to somewhere like Snopes; Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing mystery videos you find on youtube. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jaysh Al Islam Chemical Weapons Factory in Eastern Ghouta
Recently, the SAA uncovered a makeshift chemical facility in Eastern Ghouta according to SANA. Along with chemicals and equipment, they reported papers belonging to Jaysh Al Islam. JAS has admitted to using "forbidden" weapons against kurds in Aleppo province (video evidence showing yellow gas suggests it was chemical weapons) so this is not all that surprising.

This should be mentioned in the article. https://sana.sy/en/?p=130439 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jaysh's spokesman saying a commander had used "forbidden" weapons in 2016 is covered in "Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War". If there's coverage of the Syrian Army's alleged 2018 discoveries of a Jaysh chemical facility in a reliable source rather than in Syrian state media, feel free to post it here and/or in Jaysh al-Islam.Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The incident was also reported by Al Masdar News, a source which already appears in the article. The most neutral source I could find comes from muraselon, known for their detailed maps of the conflict in Syria. And from a look at their website, I cannot identify any bias in their reporting. I will go ahead and include this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Al Masdar report is just reprint of TASS report, that is based only on statement of Syrian Army colonel. Not a reliable source in my opinion.--Jklamo (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I added an additional source from Reuters. The Reuters article names the author and the reporter. In the citation, I used the name of the reporter. Should this part be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.59.59 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out Al Masdar News is used elsewhere in the article. I don't have an opinion about them, but I removed redundant references, and I tagged an entry attributed to a single "military source, who spoke on condition of anonymity", which doesn't inspire much confidence. The Reuters article is fine. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest edit
Hey guys I realise that edit I just made to the intro isn't worded perfectly but I think it's important to clarify either immediately before or imemediately after noting that the attacks have been confirmed that no evidence exists bashar was responsible for any and that confirmaton has been made al-sham was responsible for someBlob Blobbed (talk)

I also think the intro should say it has been reported that bashar perpetrated attacks before noting the lack of evidence but I was afraid the intro was already getting too wordyBlob Blobbed (talk)

My far-right crap sourced revision
User:Arsaces has reverted my addition with the following not " You can't use fringe far-right crap as a source. Also, you turned the sourcing and structure of the article into a mess."

I undid the revert but don't really know where to go from here. The citations are fine and the context provided is important to the integrity of this article, imo. What do we do now?Blob Blobbed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Zerohedge is not a reliable source and the other sources are misrepresented. FatGandhi (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is not a reliable source, but it's cited extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.51.70 (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP and exceptional claim by an unnamed source
We have a source that gives extraordinary claim using unnamed source, see what the source says list has been produced of individuals whom the investigators have linked to a series of chlorine bomb attacks in 2014-15 - including Assad, his younger brother Maher and other high-ranking figures - indicating the decision to use toxic weapons came from the very top, according to a source familiar with the inquiry. Then another mention of the source to the source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.. Per WP:CRYSTAL: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Long lead section
Howdy editors. I made a bunch of edits to the article this morning. I copyedited, I formatted the large table to be more readable, and I added content to the lead to help summarize the article.

As a reader visiting the article, I have basic questions like "how many attacks were there? when were they? who was responsible? what were some of the major attacks? is this information confirmed, and by whom?" That is the info I tried to add to the lead.

I got pretty much all my info from reading and summarizing the rest of the article. In particular, that very big table.

The lead was already pretty long. To finish cleaning up the lead, I recommend that we delete paragraphs 3, 4, and 6. For reference, here is the version I am referring to.

I figured I'd hold off on deleting content until I ran it by you guys. Thoughts? Or feel free to start rewriting/condensing the lead yourselves. Sincerely, – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and shortened the lead the other day. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This could be nitpicking, but I think the following part of the lead could be worded better: The attacks occurred in many different areas of Syria. This sentence appears to be based on the table provided on the page rather than a specific source. The sentence is not wrong but could be worded more specifically because, if we look at the table, there are Governorates of Syria with a much higher number of attacks and others with no attacks. In fact, 6 out of 14 Governorates have no reported attacks according to the table (which is admittedly not an exhaustive list):
 * Idlib: 20
 * Hama: 17
 * Rif Dimashq: 16
 * Aleppo: 12
 * Damascus: 12
 * Al-Hasakah: 2
 * Daraa: 1
 * Homs: 1
 * Deir ez-Zor: 0
 * Latakia: 0
 * Quneitra: 0
 * Raqqa: 0
 * As-Suwayda: 0
 * Tartus: 0
 * CowHouse (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: There was at least one reported attack in Latakia which I have added to the table. CowHouse (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . I crafted that sentence after looking at the map further down in the article. Visually, there are attacks scattered through many regions of the country. I don't think that the lead summarizing prose, maps, tables, etc. in the article is OR, although I do agree that it is better to cite specific sources when available.
 * I am disinclined to replace the sentence you quoted with a list of provinces, because it would add a lot of distracting details to the lead. Foreign readers are unlikely to know where those provinces are. But I could live with it if you think the change is necessary. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to replace the sentence you quoted with a list of provinces, because it would add a lot of distracting details to the lead. Foreign readers are unlikely to know where those provinces are. But I could live with it if you think the change is necessary. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Articles are supposed to be informative, not just tell people things they are already familiar with. According to our (incomplete) table, 5 out of 14 Governorates were the location of 77 out of 82 chemical attacks (about 93.9%). 5 Governorates have zero attacks listed. If summarising the table is not WP:OR I think simply saying "different areas of Syria" is not particularly informative. If it is OR, there would need to be a reliable source that mentions something similar (unless consensus is to ignore the policy). I am not suggesting we replace the quote with just a list of provinces. There are better ways of conveying this information in the actual article compared to my talk page comment. CowHouse (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not necessary to keep trying to shorten the lead section since it is not more than four paragraphs long. CowHouse (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . I respectfully disagree. I believe in and value succinct prose, especially in leads. Prose that is clear, concise, and that presents important information with a minimum of distractions. Nothing personal, but that is my editing style. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just saw your edit summary, "Added content to ensure a reader would not incorrectly assume more than half of the attacks delivered from the ground. This is providing more clarity, not less." That's a good counter point.
 * I was approaching this more from the angle of "Assad is the only one with aircraft, so it's important to point out that there are lots of proven aircraft attacks". When you look at it from the aircraft=Assad angle, whether there are any ground attacks, unknown attacks, etc. becomes less important.
 * Anyway, I think your current wording is OK. Although I will avoid editing that area of the article further today due to 1RR. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think your current wording is OK. Although I will avoid editing that area of the article further today due to 1RR. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think your current wording is OK. Although I will avoid editing that area of the article further today due to 1RR. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with pointing out the high number of air attacks. My only issue with brevity is when relevant information is omitted which is likely to mislead readers. If we only said "almost half of the attacks were from the air" then a reader could think that means more than half were from the ground. Similarly, if we only said "less than a quarter were from the ground" then a reader could think that means more than 75% were from the air.
 * If you really want to shorten the lead then I would not object to removing the sentence "The attacks occurred in different areas...", etc. I think it is too vague to be informative and there is no particular reason for singling out the various locations listed other than that those are the attacks that happen to have Wikipedia pages. CowHouse (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of keeping it in. If I'm a first time reader of this article, one of the questions in the back of my mind might be "is this just in 1 city?". The sentence you mentioned answers that question. "No, it is throughout most of the country." If you want to make the sentence more specific, maybe mention that there were attacks in "8 provinces". – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Page needs editing and updating in light of IIT/Saraqib
Article doesn't address end of JIM mandate and creation of IIT, or the new report on 2018 Saraqib attack.

The different UN/OPCW investigations are fiendishly complicated and our pages relating to them generally need updating. Also work needed on Saraqib chemical attack (which refers to 2013 attack) and IIT (disambiguation) (which needs to point to a page for the OPCW IIT). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I stated this in a another page as well
There's a series of bias and reliability issues with the following sources

• The OPCW and it's investigation were directed by a man who previously served as the permanent representative to NATO. Their investigation was also contradicted by leaked documents from WikiLeaks. Which for some reason, isn't liked here going off the edit history

• Bellingcat literally just regurgitates disproved info constantly. It also has major state funding, per both it's website and it's own director on Twitter

• The white helmets are openly pro opposition and biased against the government, SDF, and Kurdish factions. They also receive major state funding IdkIdc12345 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Feel free to identify the reliable sources that tell us this and show how they're relevant to this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)